3790 What's more important - feeling the music or vocabulary?
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 10:25:21 -0700
From: Michael at Tango Bellingham <michaele@TANGOBELLINGHAM.COM>
Subject: What's more important - feeling the music or vocabulary?
We just had Robert Hauk up in Bellingham for a great two days of
workshops, practica, and milonga (note to promoters - if you can book
this guy, do it - he's golden, regardless of what style you favor).
Based on my personal thoughts about what Robert taught and discussed
(and TANGO-L's neverending penile length-measuring contests about which
style is "better"), what about the following:
Proposition: It is better to first focus on the embrace/frame, walking
(open or closed embrace, or any combination thereof, I don't care),
balance, maintaining one's own axis, maybe a few simple steps, and, most
importantly, listening to/feeling the music, BEFORE acquiring tons of
other vocabulary. Seems to me like you have to have a really good grasp
of the former before moving to the latter.
I am reminded of Cacho's essay about "tango on the trapeze wire" and his
statement about when he was young, he danced 20 steps, when he got
older, he danced 10, and now he dances 5, but with impeccability.
Additions? Agreement or disagreement?
Michael
Tango Bellingham
www.tangobellingham.com
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 20:14:04 +0200
From: Alexis Cousein <al@BRUSSELS.SGI.COM>
Subject: Re: What's more important - feeling the music or vocabulary?
Michael at Tango Bellingham wrote:
> Proposition: It is better to first focus on the embrace/frame, walking
> (open or closed embrace, or any combination thereof, I don't care),
> balance, maintaining one's own axis, maybe a few simple steps, and, most
> importantly, listening to/feeling the music, BEFORE acquiring tons of
> other vocabulary. Seems to me like you have to have a really good grasp
> of the former before moving to the latter.
>
> Additions? Agreement or disagreement?
Agreement. On the other hand, if you have a restricted vocabulary it's
easy to *think* you've grasped everything there is about these
core points (embrace/frame, leading/following, balance, etc.)
while you haven't.
In other words, you may have to dance 20 steps in order to dance 5
impeccably; you will never know how you have to pronounce an "a"
if all you know is just two words with an "a" ;).
I'm interested in *any* "new" extra simple step if it breaks the
automatisms in whatever people are used to and/or makes subtle
problems I have everywhere suddenly glaringly apparent.
And conversely, if a new step isn't teaching me something about
the core aspects of the dance, and/or is unsurprising, then it loses
much of its appeal (or I tend to consider it just as a possible
sequence of different things, but not a *new* step).
In fact, I prefer tons of simple steps like that -- surprising,
challenging your automatisms and that of most followers,
and as a result requiring impeccable leading to get even close
to right -- to rearrange in many patterns at one's whim than
a few long athletic sequences cast in stone (I hate it
when I feel as if I've mistakenly selected competition
ice skating classes when being taught something overly
complicated).
[I also see we may have a semantic gap between us on a matter we
discussed some time ago: I only tend to call a closed embrace
one where both partners share a common axis, rather than one
in which each has "one's own axis". To me, you can have a
very close but open embrace, which is not the same thing
as a closed embrace, and in a real closed embrace, you don't
maintain your own axis.]
--
Alexis Cousein Solutions Architect
Silicon Graphics/SGI
--
If I can see further, it is by standing on reference manuals.
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 12:17:36 -0700
From: Michael at Tango Bellingham <michaele@TANGOBELLINGHAM.COM>
Subject: Re: What's more important - feeling the music or vocabulary?
Alexis Cousein wrote:
> Michael at Tango Bellingham wrote:
>
>> Proposition: It is better to first focus on the embrace/frame, walking
>> (open or closed embrace, or any combination thereof, I don't care),
>> balance, maintaining one's own axis, maybe a few simple steps, and, most
>> importantly, listening to/feeling the music, BEFORE acquiring tons of
>> other vocabulary. Seems to me like you have to have a really good grasp
>> of the former before moving to the latter.
>>
>> Additions? Agreement or disagreement?
>
>
> Agreement. On the other hand, if you have a restricted vocabulary it's
> easy to *think* you've grasped everything there is about these
> core points (embrace/frame, leading/following, balance, etc.)
> while you haven't.
>
True, which is why it's good to have someone like Robert come up and
figuratively whack you on the side of the head to re-examine things.
>
> In fact, I prefer tons of simple steps like that -- surprising,
> challenging your automatisms and that of most followers,
> and as a result requiring impeccable leading to get even close
> to right -- to rearrange in many patterns at one's whim than
> a few long athletic sequences cast in stone (I hate it
> when I feel as if I've mistakenly selected competition
> ice skating classes when being taught something overly
> complicated).
>
Yep, no argument there - stringing the simple things together is a real
challenge. One point on the "ice skating" classes - sometimes they're
useful if the instructor points out that they are a pedagogical device
and not useable on the social dance floor, i.e., a certain long
combination of fundamental movements that may expose weaknesses in your
technique, necessitating that you look at the individual components more
closely. Those kind of classes are *very* useful, especially when the
instructor says, "now take the components and rearrange them, see what
works in what order, what doesn't."
> [I also see we may have a semantic gap between us on a matter we
> discussed some time ago: I only tend to call a closed embrace
> one where both partners share a common axis, rather than one
> in which each has "one's own axis". To me, you can have a
> very close but open embrace, which is not the same thing
> as a closed embrace, and in a real closed embrace, you don't
> maintain your own axis.]
>
Ooooh, a topic for another thread, but way cool nonetheless! I thought
the shared axis was more common in the nuevo style, with the force
vectors directed more outward from the center to allow the more spinny
colgadas and stuff. The people with whom I've studied close embrace
always stressed that the lead and follow had to be able to stand on
their own, even though the weight is forward on the balls of the feet
and the torsos are in contact. But, like I said, that's another thread....
Michael
Tango Bellingham
www.tangobellingham.com
